THREATENING LANGUAGE (Hansard, 14 February 1985)

§ Mr. Winnick
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause deals with the difficulties which arise at meetings held by racist groups. The purpose of the new clause is to make it illegal: to use words which are threatening abusive or insulting to any racial group in Great Britain". I have press cuttings referring to some of the scenes which took place at election time involving organisations like the National Front. It is interesting to note that a newspaper has argued that the way in which these organisations carry on racialist meetings at election time makes a mockery of the freedom to hold such meetings.
The Observer said on 29 April 1979: Freedom carries with it many responsibilities, and few would deny that to speak in such a way that groups of people are put in terror makes a mockery of that responsibility. Yet, as the law stands, the National Front has the right to hold meetings in areas with large immigrant communities and preach its frightening humiliating anti-gospel of race hate. I agree with that comment. It is distasteful, repulsive and ugly that racist candidates can organise meetings at election time with the purpose of making threats and insulting speeches against people who belong to ethnic minority groups.
The law needs to be changed. If we say in the House of Commons that we are opposed to intimidation of people because of their race or colour, and if we pass legislation like the Race Relations Act 1976, we recognise the problem. The new clause tries to change the position in relation to election meetings. It is important that we should try to remove the possibility of the National Front deliberately holding a meeting in an area where it knows that there are a large number of Asians or blacks. This is precisely what Mosley did before the war. He held his meetings in areas like the east end, where there were a relatively large number of Jewish people.
The new clause is modest in scope. If the wording is faulty, obviously it can be rectified on Report. The problem is sufficiently serious for the minority groupings who feel threatened by National Front meetings to make us think that it should be possible to give them the kind of protection outlined in the clause.

§ Mr. Campbell-Savours
I am intervening in the debate as I feel that my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) deserves support for the thrust of the new clause, which sets out to protect minorities. None of us can feel happy when in newspapers in various parts of the country and in news bulletins we hear reports of attacks, both physical and verbal, on minorities
Such minorities look to Parliament for the resolution of their difficulty. They feel that it is only in Parliament that decisions can be taken that can transform their position and secure their rights. The new clause is simple in so far as it makes it an offence for 619 a person or persons at a lawful public meeting to which the last foregoing section applies, to use words which are threatening abusive or insulting to any racial group in Great Britain. It is a simple new clause, and I should have thought that the Minister, who on some issues tonight has shown a little flexibility, would think that in the light of the reports—I ask him to listen to what I am saying—that frequently are brought to the attention of his Department, the Government should respond.
The new clause can hardly be opposed in all reason by the Minister. I had thought that, in winding up, even if he were to be unwilling to accept the thrust of the new clause, he would wish and seek to give to the House undertakings that would meet the objectives as set out in the new clause.
My hon. Friend has several press cuttings that reveal that some chief constables believe that they currently have the powers to deal with the problem. However, there are other chief constables who recognise that the powers that they have are not sufficient to deal with it. Therefore, equally, the Minister should identify what powers he believes currently exist to deal with it. He should be willing to address himself in his reply to the question whether, in his view, and on the basis of reports that he has received from chief constables following incidents throughout the United Kingdom, it can be said that those powers are sufficient. I believe that they are not.
If the hon. Gentleman wishes to establish the basis of my belief and that of my hon. Friends who would seek to support me and my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North, he need do no more than invite to his Department, to discuss these matters with him, representatives of the various immigrant organisations in various parts of the United Kingdom, in places such as Birmingham, Manchester and London. When they come to the House and seek the ear of hon. Members, they repeatedly draw attention to what they believe to be a deficiency in the law. While on the one hand the Minister tells us that the law will work—no doubt he will try to reassure us of that when he winds up—on the other hand, those people tell us that the law is not working.
There is clearly a conflict in view. The only way that we can resolve such conflicts is either for internal mechanisms available to Members of Parliament in the form of Select Committees to flash into action, if that be the term, and carry out their own inquiries to establish the truth, or for the Minister himself to set up an independent inquiry or, indeed, a Home Office inquiry to establish the truth.
One way or another that problem must be resolved. People believe that those who address public meetings in the way that has been suggested by my hon. Friend are inclined to use language which is racial in tone and which can unsettle communities. If people believe that and know it to be true, it is for the Minister in this society to ensure that every possible legal power is available to the courts and to chief constables to secure compliance with the law and the protection of minority communities.

§ Mr. Bermingham
I take on board what my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) has said, and I suggest that there has been, and has been known to have been, a difference in practice among various chief constables in dealing wth what are basically section 5 offences under the Public Order Act 1936. If the Minister were to undertake tonight to amend section 97 on Third 620 Reading to make it clear to chief constables that section 97 is in line with section 5, and that therefore section 5 proceedings could be brought in future, we would overcome the problem and get rid of many of the arguments that have been put forward. In some areas police will prosecute people for offensive behaviour at public meetings, whereas in other areas the police do not seem willing to prosecute because they argue that they do not have the powers to bring those proceedings for incidents arising out of meetings.

§ Mr. Mellor
The hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) has, as always, been most helpful. In referring to a lack of consistency in prosecution practice he is referring to a gap in our criminal justice system to which we are applying our minds at this moment with the Prosecution of Offences Bill and the creation of the independent prosecution service, which should have the effect of achieving greater consistency in prosecution practice.
I listened with great care to the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), supported by his hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours). The hon. Member for Walsall, North will remember our debate earlier in relation to the use of public meetings to hold rallies by racist groups and the discussion that we had on that. I think that I made it clear there that we share the hon. Gentleman's resentment at such behaviour and recognise that it is intended to be deliberately provocative. Indeed, as we know, in Southall in 1979 it succeeded in so being.
I have looked at the hon. Gentleman's new clause, and if I thought that there was any hiatus in the law I would be prepared to address it. But the law on this point is clear, and provided that we can make prosecution practice consistent, which I think the hon. Member for St. Helens, South will be minded to agree will come about with the independent prosecution service, it is hard to think that people will be able to stir up racial hatred in speeches without being brought to book.
I was invited by the hon. Member for Workington to state with clarity the present law. It is contained in section 5A of the Public Order Act 1936, which was amended by the Labour Government in 1976 by section 70 of the Race Relations Act 1976 to provide that: A person commits an offence if— (a) he publishes or distributes written matter which is threatening, abusive or insulting; or"— this is the relevant part for public meetings— "(b) he uses in any public place or at any public meeting words which are threatening, abusive or insulting, in a case where, having regard to all the circumstances, hatred is likely to be stirred up against any racial group in Great Britain by the matter or words in question. I should have thought that that would catch any racially inflammatory language of the kind the hon. Member for Walsall, North has rightly deplored. If, having had the opportunity of hearing what I say, he can bring to my notice any cases where it appears that the law is not being enforced, or any instances where reprehensible behaviour has occurred where apparently no breach of the law took place, I shall be more than willing to investigate.
I hope that I have made it clear to the hon. Gentleman that the law, which has been looked at within the last decade by a Labour Government, was intended, rightly, to be tight on these matters, and I hope that, certainly after 621 the Prosecution of Offences Bill becomes law, we shall be able to deal with this problem wherever it might arise in the country.

§ Mr. Winnick
I have listened to the Minister and I think he recognises that the problem exists. The new clause was moved on the basis that as the Bill was going through the House it was a good opportunity to try to rectify the situation.
I have in my hand reports of meetings over the last few years in various parts of the country. They refer to riots at National Front meetings and make comments such as, "National Front meeting erupts into violence", "Police called to National Front election meeting", "Police break up electoral brawl", "Violence grows at hustings", and so on. It is in cases such as these that many of us are concerned that there is a breach of the law.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) pointed out, people seek protection from the House of Commons. It is all very well to say that protection exists, but if at a general election or a by-election meeting people come in who are little more than political gangsters, whose sole purpose is to produce as much violence and hatred as possible in an area where there are large numbers of people from an immigrant background, in my view the law needs to be rectified.
The Minister is saying that there might be some other means of tackling this problem in the near future, but I would be much happier if the Government were willing to accept either the new clause which I have moved, or another clause perhaps differently worded, which would to a large extent deal with the problem which I have outlined to the Committee today.
622 Question put and negatived.